I'm Not Built For This - But How Can I Get Better?

[Nimrod Troyte]

I am a stocky ex-rugby player with an inside leg of 29". I have got into erging regularly over the last few months, and despite being 41 I still want to make substantial improvements to my times, however I suspect that with not being 6'5" and 230lbs there's a probably limit to how far I can get.

My technique is not too bad (I think), but I find myself rowing at 26-30 spm and this makes all PB attempts pretty hard.

Question 1 - at my age and with this level of cadence is it unrealistic to hit targets like a <7 2k, a <19.30 5k, a <40 10k and a 7500 30min?

Question 2 - I am probably carrying about 30lbs too much weight. Would losing it help me get times down, or is it an advantage to be heavier in terms of momentum?

Any advice gratefully received.

TY

Jim

[johnlvs2run]

There is no limitation for achieving those goals based on your height.

Also your shorter inseam is an advantage for rowing. You are the same height that I am and my inseam is 32 plus, which gives you more leverage with your upper body and your back. As example, Rich Cureton is several inches taller than me but his inseam is less.

My technique is not too bad (I think), but I find myself rowing at 26-30 spm and this makes all PB attempts pretty hard.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You can row at any rating that you wish. Especially going for PB's it is important to keep your rating moving along and not bogging down at low rates.

Question 1 - at my age and with this level of cadence is it unrealistic to hit targets like a <7 2k, a <19.30 5k, a <40 10k and a 7500 30min?

Very realistic.

Question 2 - I am probably carrying about 30lbs too much weight. Would losing it help me get times down, or is it an advantage to be heavier in terms of momentum?

Yes.

Yes to a point but loose it anyway.

Losing the excess will help your fitness and not hurt your times.

There is a limit to the effective healthy weight a person can carry based on height anyway.

[LateinEarlyOut]

Yeah those goals are very doable. A couple pieces of advise...

1. Get a training plan and stick to it. Here is a good simple one that is put out by Concept2.
http://www.concept2.co.uk/training/interactive.php
Concept2 Rowing Machines | Interactive 2,000m Programme

2. Record, record, record. Keep track of your workouts and track your improvement. Remember go for small, but consistent improvements. That way you will stay hooked and be less likely to get injured or burnt out.

3. Repeat workouts on a 2-4 week schedule. I repeat several baseline workouts to ensure that I am improving. Some of these workout are high intensity and some are medium, but every time I beat my old times it really keeps me motivated. Also add in odd or different workouts that you have never done so that you don't get bored.

Good luck

[Buckiller]

As john pointed out, it wouldnt hurt to lose the weight... But dont expect much of an improvement from JUST losing those 30lbs. The concept2 seat doesnt have that much friction... so weight isnt that big of a factor.

[Bob S.]

The concept2 seat doesnt have that much friction... so weight isnt that big of a factor.

It is not the friction that counts here but the work done producing the reciprocal motion of the body. Weight is a big factor in that. At each stroke, most of the weight of the body is being accelerated (and decelerated) once in each direction. If you did nothing else but roll up and down the slide without holding on to the handle you would still be producing a significant amount of work. And the heavier you are, the more that the work would be. The higher the stroke rate, the more important this is, which is one reason why heavy rowers tend to use lower stroke rates than light rowers even when they have the same height and reach.

Bob S.

[Nimrod Troyte]

Thanks gents.

I guess I am labouring under the view that all successful rowers seem to be 230-50lbs and 6'2"-6'6". Perhaps that's just for rowing on water - where I guess that a heavier boat will have more momentum once it gets going.

The point about SPM cadence - surely shorter atheletes have to work harder than taller ones e.g. surely it would have taken Ben Jonson a lot more strides to cover 100m than Carl Lewis. In the same way, I have to pull at 29 SPM as opposed to 22 SPM for a taller guy.

[Carl Henrik]

Hi Jim,

Though there is a slight decrease in max heart rate with aging, there is also a tendency for decrease in how good you are at new movements (at least in terms of intensity that does not lead to direct injury).

With a slightly lower max potential and a possibly lower starting point, your ability to improve need not be any less than that of an 18 year old. It could be higher.

Your ability to improve your erging is more affected by what exercise you have done during the recent years than by biological aging. For example, if you have been doing aerobically intense full body exercises your potential to improve is less, because you are already at a higher percentage of your potential.

Re question 1, potential )
The time targets you list are not quite balanced. The 2k sub 7 is tough and would be more similar to 5k sub 18:30 and 10k sub 38:40. Cadence and age is not a sufficient determinant for what is realistic and not.

Typically you can improve your honest aerobic power output with around 30% percent from aerobically sedentary. This may not seem much compared to strength improvements where a 100% increase is possible from sedentary, but those 100% are only available for one minute, the aerobic 30% are available for hours. Another way to look at it is that the duration for wich you can deliver a certain amount of aerobic power will grow exponentially with your ability to deliver intensity aerobically. For example a 30% increase in power output available may lead to your ability to sustain an effort 400% longer than before.

Some years ago I started a thread asking for people who had done a 10k at 2k pace, the pace of their first honest 2k, and there were some who had made it.

What a beginner could do to determine some realistic whereabouts for his or her potential is an honest test over 2k and look at the wattage. Add 30%. This will usually correspond to around 40secs off your 2k. It is easy to write such a thing, but if you're planning to do it be prepared for loads of pain.

Re question 2, weight)
Loosing 20lbs of fat will probably make you slightly faster on the erg and feel more energetic off it.

Training advice)
There are many programs. Be sure to use one with 4x1k or similar sessions. For a beginner this will lead to the quickest and largest physical adaptations related to erging a 2k, and adaptations that is beneficial to other activities and health as well.

[Nimrod Troyte]

What a beginner could do to determine some realistic whereabouts for his or her potential is an honest test over 2k and look at the wattage. Add 30%. This will usually correspond to around 40secs off your 2k. It is easy to write such a thing, but if you're planning to do it be prepared for loads of pain.

Don't quite understand this. My best 2k at the start was about 8:15 - after a erging since April it is now 7:34, after a few weeks off with holiday & injury I'm at 7:50. To determine potential using the 'wattage +30%' formula which figure should I use? My starting place or current?

Re question 2, weight)
Loosing 20lbs of fat will probably make you slightly faster on the erg and feel more energetic off it.

The wife will be pleased!

[Nimrod Troyte]

Hello Henrik.

Thanks for the reply.

Don't quite understand your point about the 'wattage +30% formula'.

My best 2k at the start was about 8:15 - after erging since April it is now 7:34, after a few weeks off with holiday & injury I'm at 7:50. To determine potential using the suggested formula which figure should I use? My starting place or current?



Re question 2, weight)
Loosing 20lbs of fat will probably make you slightly faster on the erg and feel more energetic off it.

The wife will be pleased!

Cheers,

Jim

[Carl Henrik]

The +30% is reasonable for an aerobically sedentary person who has erged a few weeks with coaching so that pacing and technique is somewhat related to the basic principles. Currently you are a good bit off that starting point, but maybe the 8:15 is representative of that, maybe not.

Your realistic potential assuming a base time of 8:15 and using the "+30% formula" would be 7:33.6. You PB is 7:34, so 7:33.6 does indeed seem realistic. Anything faster may well be possible though. If your 8:15 was not as honest and sound a race as it should have been or if you loose 20lbs, or eat better, train better or just have a very large ability to adapt, etc, then you could well become faster, but there are no guarantees. You have the right to feel extra excited about every second faster than 7:33.6 and loosing the extra weight can well be a source to get those seconds off.

[Nimrod Troyte]

Henrik,

Uncannily accurate formula.

Well, there's a challenge then! I'll let you know what happened at the start of October when I've been off the beer for a couple of months.

Thanks and all the best.

Jim